Communion wine

[Lupinus]

I use wine - fruit of the vine.
Others use grape juice - same fruit of the vine.

As I said before, sugar cane juice and rum are different things. Honey mixed with water and allowed to ferment, potato skins mixed with water, etc.

We know it was not grape juice in the cup, it was grape wine which is fermented grape juice. Fermentation changes the composition from juice, to wine. All that aside, we know for a fact Jesus used wine which is why we should use it also.

Am I saying communion done without wine and with juice is invalid? Of course not it's not my place to claim such. I can only go by what we know Jesus used, and that was wine. And out of reverence staying as close as possible we should use grape wine.

While I may not hold to a legalistic view of it, I do hold to a literalistic view of it.

 

[Edial]

*confused*

Okay... That's just repeating that God can do whatever He wants. I agree with that and I understand that you believe that. Of course God can do what He wants in His grace and mercy. I'm asking about where He promises to act. Lutheranism is all about trusting the promises of God, right?

To ask directly: Where and when is there God's promise that He will act? Under what conditions? Note: I'm not asking when God will or won't act. That's up to Him. But from a Lutheran perspective, under what conditions can we be *sure* that God will act, because we can be *sure* that we have His promise?

It's a valid question. It's not a trick or a trap. I'm honestly interested in a Lutheran perspective on this.

Grace and peace,
John

God's grace is based on His promises.
He presents that even when one sins, grace will be given.
The caution is however when one sins arrogantly yet expects grace, one better watch out.

RO 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
RO 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

When I came as a practical atheist to a Roman Catholic communion, the Priest communed me very reluctantly (long line) and then refused to shake my hand on my way out.
God however, instead of punishing me, saved me about a year later.

When we know we ought not to do something, yet do it and demand God's grace - we will not have it.
When we do something that we ought not to do, yet do it in ignorance or desperation or due to pressure, God gives us grace.

That is why people do not go to Heaven via Baptism, nor Communion, but based on God's grace ... through faith.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

Right. If you read my posts, you'll see that I understand that. I'm not asking him what God *would* or *did* do. I understand that God can do whatever He wishes. What he's answering isn't what I'm asking.

Lutherans are very big on saying that we can trust the promises of God and that we should only do what we have God's promise for. So what I'm asking is this:

Realizing that God *could* do whatever He wanted and *might* have been present in the Eucharist for the first 900 years of Christianity, and that thus I'm not asking about what He did...

Did they, when they were using leavened bread for those 900 years, have God's *promise* that He was present? Or if He was present, would it have had to been as a special grace, outside of promise?

Grace and peace,
John

But you are asking here what they (people here) think concerning what God would do in situations that are extra Biblical, like that account of a peasant who was making a wine out of berries.

You are also insisting on the answer concerning the 900 year practice of the church.

Some basically said: "I do not know"

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

cantaloupes grow on vines too. Can we use cantaloupe juice?

They used a grape vine.

29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

 

[RadMan]

Water was used probably because they were afraid of Paul's admonition that people were getting drunk during the communion feast with full mean and all.

The closer we are to the times of any event the more we try imitating it.

Yet times change.

Yet the words were written for all times.

And the word says - fruit of the vine.
(We know that this vine is a grape vine because they drank wine. Wine comes from grape vine).

However, the fruit of the grape vine is also grapes.

In Heaven we also will drink the "fruit of the vine".

And there it will be neither grape wine nor grape juice as we know it, ... but a certain fruit of the vine that grows in Heaven.

In my opinion, based on the word alone, the Communion is very much effective as long as that what we drink is a fruit of the grape vine.

Whether I personally drink grape wine or grape juice is another matter.

Thanks,
Ed

The only problem with what you say is that the traditional way it was done both in the OT, with passover, and the way the first century Christians observed the Lord's Supper is in total opposition to what you, and some others, are promoting. Coupled with the idea that grape juice will change almost immediately unless preserved in a manner that might not have been available to the apostolic church.

It just seems unfounded that "fruit of the vine" is anything but wine. These are facts and what you promote is an assumption rather than a rule of scripture, history and tradition.

 

[DaRev]

Yet times change.

Yet the words were written for all times.

But the meanings of the words don't change, nor does the context of the Scriptures as a whole, since the Scriptures do not change. Thus they hold the same exact meaning today as they did back then, and context determines the meaning.

 

[Edial]

The only problem with what you say is that the traditional way it was done both in the OT, with passover, and the way the first century Christians observed the Lord's Supper is in total opposition to what you, and some others, are promoting. Coupled with the idea that grape juice will change almost immediately unless preserved in a manner that might not have been available to the apostolic church.

It just seems unfounded that "fruit of the vine" is anything but wine. These are facts and what you promote is an assumption rather than a rule of scripture, history and tradition.

I thought it made sense that these guys would be cautious concerning drinking pure wine because they obviously would be more sensitive to Paul's admonition that some got drunk.

I mean, during Paul's time the wine clearly was not mixed with water. People were getting drunk. It is like getting drunk on beer ... one would need to drink up a case in order to get drunk ... and have a huge beer belly.

Later on they began mixing it with water.

Why? I don'k know. Just made a guess.

And I feel very comfortable saying that a fruit of a vine is a grape product. Juice or wine.

Christ chose words very carefully.

And I already presented a case that in Heaven we will not drink either grape juice nor grape wine, but some other type of a fruit that will grow in a vine in Heaven.

Yet Christ clearly stated that in Heaven we will drink the fruit of the vine, the product of which He held in His hand.

All I know is that on this earth we are to drink the fruit of the vine.

I am not breaking my back over the application, but by what He said, since Christ chooses words carefully.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

But the meanings of the words don't change, nor does the context of the Scriptures as a whole, since the Scriptures do not change. Thus they hold the same exact meaning today as they did back then, and context determines the meaning.

Of course.

And what did the word say?

It said the fruit of the vine ... both here and in Heaven.

Since we know that we will not drink specifically a man-made wine in Heaven, what can we conclude then?

We can conclude that the fruit of the vine should be exactly what it says. No more, no less.

Some say: "No problem with Pepsi". Some say: "Must be wine".

I don't agree with either statement.

Yet I undersatand this - fruit of the vine - anything containing grape.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[DaRev]

But the Passover meal in first century Palestine involved the "fruit of the vine" which was fermented. So, in the correct context using Scripture to interpret Scripture, the "fruit of the vine" mentioned by Christ in association with the cup of the Lord's Supper, it is and can only be fermented wine.

 

[Edial]

But the Passover meal in first century Palestine involved the "fruit of the vine" which was fermented. So, in the correct context using Scripture to interpret Scripture, the "fruit of the vine" mentioned by Christ in association with the cup of the Lord's Supper, it is and can only be fermented wine.

So let's use Scripture with Scripture ...

MK 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25 "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

What will Christ drink in Heaven?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[DaRev]

So let's use Scripture with Scripture ...

MK 14:24 "This is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25 "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

What will Christ drink in Heaven?

According to the context, the same thing that was in the cup.

 

[RadMan]

I mean, during Paul's time the wine clearly was not mixed with water. People were getting drunk. It is like getting drunk on beer ... one would need to drink up a case in order to get drunk ... and have a huge beer belly.

Interesting that you should say that since Paul was after Jesus. That just shows the continuity of what was at the Lord's Supper. Wine.

 

[Edial]

According to the context, the same thing that was in the cup.

Go on ... what exactly?

 

[Edial]

Interesting that you should say that since Paul was after Jesus. That just shows the continuity of what was at the Lord's Supper. Wine.

Correct. I am not denying they drank wine. Wine was drank at the table.

Yet the 1st century church began diluting the wine as well as gradually stopping having full meals.
(For example, you are probably not having a full meal during communion).
Because applications to the words "fruit of the vine" changed.
Yet the words stay.

What I am saying is that Christ used a specific phrase "fruit of the vine" and that includes anything of grape.

Many churches include grape juice at the communion. I cannot and should not say it is inappropriate.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Lupinus]

What will Christ drink in Heaven?

Apparently, He'll be tipping a glass of vino.

 

[BabyLutheran]

Manischewitz I hope!

 

[RadMan]

Correct. I am not denying they drank wine. Wine was drank at the table.

Yet the 1st century church began diluting the wine as well as gradually stopping having full meals.
(For example, you are probably not having a full meal during communion).
Because applications to the words "fruit of the vine" changed.
Yet the words stay.

What I am saying is that Christ used a specific phrase "fruit of the vine" and that includes anything of grape.

Many churches include grape juice at the communion. I cannot and should not say it is inappropriate.

Thanks,
Ed

The "fruit of the vine" argument you are presenting is a very thin explanation in light of the extensive amount of Bilical, historical and traditional evidece that has been presented. That's almost like taking a Bible verse out of context and extrapolation ad nauseum. Remember Bible verses were added later in the church and only for referencing and not as a cut and dried object for supporting an argument in and of itself. That's reformed thinking.

The verse has to be taken in context with not only the verses around it but also the rest of the Bible. It has to agree in "CONTEXT".

 

[Edial]

So, I repent in sackcloth and ashes ...

It appears that in Heaven we will drink wine.

And if in Heaven we will drink wine then in my head, it completes the study on this verse ...

MT 26:29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

Since I know now that we will drink wine in Heaven (Heavenly wine of a type), there is no reason to think that drinking grape juice is proper, since the fruit of the vine is grape wine in all cases, OT, Lord's Supper, Paul's communion, Heaven.

There appear to be 2 types of wine in Heaven.

1. There are specific references to a cup of wine that will intoxicate nations.

PS 75:7 But it is God who judges:
He brings one down, he exalts another.

PS 75:8 In the hand of the LORD is a cup
full of foamingwine mixed with spices;
he pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth drink it down to its very dregs.

So there is wine in Heaven.

2. Yet there is also a new wine, a good wine.

Yet it appears to be gradually revealed in the writings.

Wine offering to God -


NU 18:12 "I give you all the finest olive oil and all the finest new wine and grain they give the LORD as the firstfruits of their harvest.

God gives us good wine that gladdens one's heart -


PS 104:14 He makes grass grow for the cattle,
and plants for man to cultivate--
bringing forth food from the earth:

PS 104:15wine that gladdens the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine,
and bread that sustains his heart.

Wisdom is referring to a wine that is set at her table -

PR 9:1 Wisdom has built her house;
she has hewn out its seven pillars.

PR 9:2 She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine;
she has also set her table.

PR 9:3 She has sent out her maids, and she calls
from the highest point of the city.

PR 9:4 "Let all who are simple come in here!"
she says to those who lack judgment.

PR 9:5 "Come, eat my food
and drink the wine I have mixed.

PR 9:6 Leave your simple ways and you will live;
walk in the way of understanding.

Diluted wine is presented as something incomplete -

ISA 1:22 Your silver has become dross,
your choice wine is diluted with water.

Christ turned water into wine (definitely a sign) -

JN 4:46 Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine.

Christ drank wine and was even accused for it -

MT 11:19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, `Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."

Getting drunk is an unwise act (had to plug this in) -

EPH 5:15 Be very careful, then, how you live--not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

We will be served aged wine by God Himself -

ISA 25:6 On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine--
the best of meats and the finest of wines.


AND ... AND ... something I did not pay attention to from the very verses we all were quoting from.

Matthew has a unique rendition ...

MT 26:29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

The word "this", in "this fruit of the vine" points to the specific content of the cup, which is wine.

So, ... did I mention I repent in sackcloth and ashes?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[DaRev]

AND ... AND ... something I did not pay attention to from the very verses we all were quoting from.

Matthew has a unique rendition ...

MT 26:29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

The word "this", in "this fruit of the vine" points to the specific content of the cup, which is wine.

So, ... did I mention I repent in sackcloth and ashes?

Actually, Ed, I pointed to that particular verse twice in my explanation to BreadAlone concerning what was in Christ's cup, and the use of the demonstrative pronoun "this." I think Kae did as well.

 

[Edial]

Actually, Ed, I pointed to that particular verse twice in my explanation to BreadAlone concerning what was in Christ's cup, and the use of the demonstrative pronoun "this." I think Kae did as well.

So ... it proves once more that blindness is a spiritual matter, not physical.

Besides, I was assured by my doctor that the eye surgery I had yesterday would improve my vision.

I guess he was right,